D3100 to D5200 - Upgrade worth it for amateur?

Caporegime
Joined
29 Jul 2011
Posts
36,342
Location
In acme's chair.
Hi guys,

I have a D3100 at the moment with the standard 18 - 55 DX VR kit lens and I am looking to upgrade it. The 18 - 55 works fine for most of the photography I do (close proximity, car shows, etc etc)

I have found a D5200 which is a decent price and will mean the upgrade will cost me about £150 after selling my D3100 body.

The tech specs look much better but I know that isn't everything! - http://cameradecision.com/compare/Nikon-D3100-vs-Nikon-D5200

My decision to upgrade to be honest is because a friend of mine bought a Canon 200D and his shots in full auto mode with no experience whatsoever are so much crisper and clearer than mine straight off the camera, even if I spend ages tweaking settings before I take a shot... He's also able to use clarity filters in Photoshop without the picture going grainy like they do for me.

My main complaints about the 3100 are extremely poor low light performance, temperamental auto-focus, low resolution screen making it impossible to review shots, and a general lack of detail/graininess to my pictures even if I shoot on a low ISO. The colour depth also seems quite 'flat' if that is the right word?

It is entirely possible that I am just completely hopeless and using it wrong which is why I'm asking if the upgrade is worth it. :p

A couple of landscapes I took ages ago which kinda show the lack of fine detail captured in the field etc:
https://imgur.com/a/nlxkAdx

And a random triplet from car shows:
https://imgur.com/a/xHM2Sog

Whereas this is these are the pictures my mate took with his 200D the other day which make me feel decidedly inadequate... They just 'pop' more and seem far more vibrant and detailed!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/95237721@N04/sets/72157692800126082/

He uses a clarity filter in Photoshop on his RAW files to make them look like this, but when I do that to mine the image becomes grainy... So I'm thinking the 10 extra megapixels would help if I wanted to edit mine in this way?

Thoughts... :)
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
23 Dec 2009
Posts
3,242
Location
Earth
I'd suggest trying the D5200 with your lens if possible, as it may be your lens that is giving you the soft results rather than the camera body.

Have you also tried different focal lengths and apertures to eliminate the lens being softer at certain values than others?
 
Caporegime
OP
Joined
29 Jul 2011
Posts
36,342
Location
In acme's chair.
I would have to buy it first :( Unless i manage to find someone with one I can try.

Its exactly the same lens the D5200 came bundled with when new.

I usually shoot with the aperture wide open so i can use a low ISO and a fast shutter speed. Might that be my error?
 
Soldato
Joined
23 Dec 2009
Posts
3,242
Location
Earth
I usually shoot with the aperture wide open

The fast shutter and low ISO should not be an issue but if you are shooting mainly in day light why do you shoot wide open? I would try a few test shoots with different aperture values to see if the results are any different. Some lens can be soft wide open.

Do you shoot with a tripod or handheld?
 
Associate
Joined
12 Apr 2018
Posts
109
Location
England
You can tell there's a more experienced photographer behind the shots with the nikon, but I do agree the canon shots are sharper and clearer.

The Canon does have an advantage in ISO, dynamic range and colour depth so that would already make a clear difference but that extra 10 megapixels means if there was any noise it may be harder to see.

The d5200 would be a good choice to jump to IMO
 
Caporegime
Joined
12 Mar 2004
Posts
29,913
Location
England
The problem here is the kit lens you are using, it quite simply is crap. It is going to give you soft images that lack detail on any body you buy. I would suggest buying a 35mm f/1.8 if you want sharp images and good low light performance.

However if we want to talk about bodies...

The D5200 is a worthwhile upgrade, but I would suggest the D7000 or the D7100 if budget allows, you can pick one up for <£250 on ebay. It features the same sensor performance as the D5200 (albeit at 16mp), but it has a much better AF system, far superior viewfinder and continuous shooting performance, and twice the battery life. It handles a lot better in general and is just a much more professional level body that's easier to use and weather sealed which is great when your at a show and it's raining. Not to mention the AF motor opens up a much larger range of lenses that you can use with the camera giving you more flexibility for the future.
 
Last edited:
Don
Joined
19 May 2012
Posts
17,057
Location
Spalding, Lincolnshire
My main complaints about the 3100 are extremely poor low light performance, temperamental auto-focus

I'm definitely no expert, but I have got a D3200. Upgrading to a better lens made no end of difference - I have a 1.8 50mm and it has almost incredible low light performance compared to the kit lens, and AF is considerably better. (and usable bokeh! :))

You would probably be better off with a 35mm lens I would think but they are still pretty cheap and can be carried up to a better body later.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
12 Mar 2004
Posts
29,913
Location
England
I'm definitely no expert, but I have got a D3200. Upgrading to a better lens made no end of difference - I have a 1.8 50mm and it has almost incredible low light performance compared to the kit lens, and AF is considerably better. (and usable bokeh! :))

You would probably be better off with a 35mm lens I would think but they are still pretty cheap and can be carried up to a better body later.

I definitely agree he would be better off spending money on a faster lens if he wants low light performance, the 18-55mm kit lenses are crap for low light, at f/5.6 they let in about 10x less light than a cheap f/1.8 prime lens.

That's the difference between a grainy POS image at ISO 6400 vs a usable image @ ISO 600.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Associate
Joined
12 Apr 2018
Posts
109
Location
England
I'm definitely no expert, but I have got a D3200. Upgrading to a better lens made no end of difference - I have a 1.8 50mm and it has almost incredible low light performance compared to the kit lens, and AF is considerably better. (and usable bokeh! :))

You would probably be better off with a 35mm lens I would think but they are still pretty cheap and can be carried up to a better body later.

Even if he's stuck on cost, Yongnuo have phenomenal lenses (obviously don't match up with the originals they attempt to copy) for the price.
My 50mm f1.8 was just under £60, if I'd have bought a nikon it would have been about double that and only seen marginal differences in sharpness etc
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
32,615
I would have to buy it first :( Unless i manage to find someone with one I can try.

Its exactly the same lens the D5200 came bundled with when new.

I usually shoot with the aperture wide open so i can use a low ISO and a fast shutter speed. Might that be my error?


Yes, lack of depth of focus, plus lenses wont be at their best wide open.

Before buying a camera you need to learn photography.
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Sep 2007
Posts
3,605
Location
West Yorkshire, England
Very true.

One thing I've done in the past is search Flickr for people using my exact camera and looking in awe at all those great shots I'm mostly unable to get. Along with checking their lens / settings. Could be worth a look and see if the same kit on someone else performs to your expectations or better, could just be down to technique
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
32,615
Definitely not equipment. You only have to go back a few years an Pros would be dreaming of a camera as capable of the D3100.
And the kit lens when used as appropriate apertures for landscape photography will be hard to distinguish from a 2K professional lens.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
28,069
Location
London
Have a 5200 and love it. Couple it with a Sigma 18-35 1.8 and you're sorted :cool:, though the 35mm and 50mm 1.8s are also decent and a lot cheaper.
 
Don
Joined
19 May 2012
Posts
17,057
Location
Spalding, Lincolnshire
Lots of conflicting opinions in here!

I don't think it's so much conflicting opinions, they are all largely right to some degree and I think you need to follow them in this sort of order:
1. Compare photos others have taken with D3100
2. Get better at photography through practice (I still need to do this, and I guess even professionals are still continually improving)
3. Buy better lens (e.g. if low light/dull days are your biggest issue, then a f1.8 prime will improve the auto focus, and allow lower ISO, reducing grainy-ness)
4. Upgrade to better body later (and still get benefits of all of the above)


Whilst I'm sure some of the more "Pro" photographers here would have a better idea than me, reading opinions and comparisons between "entry-level" kit like the D3x00 and some of the "Pro" kit e.g. Dx00 e.g. https://petapixel.com/2016/04/21/d3100-vs-d800-can-actually-tell-difference/ it sounds like there isn't a huge gulf between what is possible, just that the "Pro" level bodies offer more flexibility and different/easier ways to get the results you want consistently
 
Back
Top Bottom